This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Literary and artistic property only deals with things that reflect the author's personality. For wine labels, legal mentions are unprotected, fonts are unprotected, typographic compositions are protected insofar as they are original (which is seldom the case), the only artistic part that could be related to artistic property is usually the picture associated to the wine label.
The picture is included into something that is not meant to be an artistic object, but is essentially a (wine) label. As such, the relevant legislation is that of trade marks and labels, not the one on artistic property (the art work is a de minimis for the label), and that legislation allows for picture reproductions. Even though the object itself is not free (the model is industrially owned) and even though the picture includes artistic work (that can't be reproduced isolated), the picture as a whole is "as free as can be", its reproduction (as a whole) is legal. Though of course it needs an adequate Category:Restriction tags, probably something like Template:Tobacco logos.
This is the same situation when you take a picture of a Rolls-Royce : The Spirit of Ecstasy figure definitely is an artistic object, but included in an industrial model ; you may take a photograph of the industrial thing (and in that case, the design of the car is not considered as an artistic creation, because the whole thing is an industrial model, and follows the corresponding legislation). But a close-up of the artistic figure would be an artistic reproduction - forbidden as such. So you can't just do whatever you want with the picture, since a close-up will never be allowed a CC-tag, but the picture is "as free as can possibly be", its reproduction is free and needs no authorizations, which is all that is required to be included in commons.
IMHO, wine labels are generally OK to Keep, unless very special cases which would mark them as being essentially artistic creations as a whole (i.e., the whole thing is meant to be an artistic creation, and is used and reproduced as such, the wine label just being used as a medium for the work). Michelet-密是力 (talk) 07:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepMove to Wikipedia. Image uploaders are encouraged to place images on Commons rather than Wikipedia, where these images are used in several articles. They should easily be covered under Fair Use on Wikipedia. It isn't any different from the plethora of scans of CD covers, books covers, etc. I doubt these images would have been an issue had they been uploaded to Wikipedia instead. Anachronist (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keepper Mike GoodwinI admit that I am still researching the issue for a more definitive legal answer but from a practical application I fail to see the difference between Wikipedia's use of these images compared to their usage on wine blogs and other wine related web sites and publications. In years of working in the wine industry, I've never heard of a winery claiming copyright infringement for use of their label in some discussion about wine. On the contrary, they are more often thrilled to have their image out there for the publicity. Agne27 (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's correct. Therefore, the images should be transferred to the Wikipedia project, where fair use is allowed, rather than deleted outright. Anachronist (talk) 04:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The images ended up at Commons under the (possibly faulty) assumption that such images aren't Fair Use licence type, but rather private reproductions of the exterior of a product that noone pays to simply watch, and visual copyright concerns, especially of antiques, seem tenuous. The comparison is closer to an old ticket stub where the image is insufficient to go see the show. If such documentation now is counter to Commons policy, it would be appreciated they last long enough to be transwikied. Murgh (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of course, if some images are allowed under fair-use on some Wikipedias, we shall give some time to transer them / undelete them for that purpose. In any case, we are discussing here whether they belong to Commons. Jean-Fred (talk) 14:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anachronist, if they are to be used under terms of fair use, they can not exist on Commons, which only accepts freely licensed images. Your argument is a keep argument for Wikipedia, not here on Commons. I'm sorry but your argument is invalid. Agne27, we are not concerned with the choices that various blogs make in their use of images from other sources. That's their concern with regards to copyright, and not ours. It has no influence here. With regards to whether they would complain of copyright infringement, that is not a concern for us either. We do not host images awaiting a cease and desist letter from the copyright holders. If there is reason to believe the image is copyrighted, we delete it from Commons. For my own part, I fail to see any evidence these images are free of copyright from the holder of the copyrights to the labels. All of them contain artwork that is copyrightable. Further, these photographs are focused on the labels, and the labels are not incidental to the entire image. If any of these labels are in the public domain in their country of origin by way of another means, such as age (I did not detect anything, but I could have missed something), then there is an argument to keep those specific images. But, such arguments are not currently present. Therefore, delete the lot, transferring as needed/requested before deleting. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The majority are too simple to qualify for copyright, or use very generic icons or pictures that are simply ineligible for copyright. Trademark law is what protects these. -Nard the Bard23:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some Delete and some Keep. We should delete copyvio but we should not be more holy than the pope. I think that we could keep some and should delete others. Some examples:
I disagree with some of MGA73's assessments. An illustration of grapes, or a building, even if "simple", may still qualify for copyright. But I agree with the general sentiment. Keep the unquestionably PD-text labels, but delete (and selectively restore at en.wiki) the ones that contain more complex artwork (even simple line drawings of building and grapes). I think there may be a couple PD-OLD labels in there as well (though they may not have been tagged), so we should consider that as well in keeping. -Andrew c (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any picture depicting an entire bottle passes the margin that the label itself should be considered de minimis. However, most photographs of just the label do not pass that bar, and any photograph of just a label that may be considered artistic should be remove. Bastiquedemandez18:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any legal cite/precedence for that interpretation of de minimis? If a wine bottle were sitting on a table, with cheese, some grapes, etc. ok...but focused on the bottle only? I think the line is different than you suggest. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no hard and clear lines on de minimis, but the focus of an image is never de minimis, and the label of the bottle is the focus point of a straight-forward picture of a bottle of wine.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the label is not de minimis I think that an image could be kept if the "grapic element" is only a small part of the label. --MGA73 (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Bastique: on most cases, the drawing is de minimis. See the argumentation on the French WP. Yann (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Those which are not in public domain or not {{PD-textlogo}}. It's definitely not de minimis since it's sole subject of image. And photos of wine itself (of course, in glass) could quite well serve purpose of article illustration. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I asked Mike Godwin by mail, who responded:
I don't believe there's a copyright problem with photographs of wine-bottle labels. In the absence of a complaint from wine makers, I would not worry about the issue. In the event that there's a copyright complaint from any wine makers, they'll send WMF a formal takedown notice, and we'll respond appropriately.
—Mike
Note that this should not be taken as a legal or official action of the General Counsel or the Legal Department of the Wikimedia Foundation.
I wonder why In the event that there's a copyright complaint from any wine makers, they'll send WMF a formal takedown notice, and we'll respond appropriately. principe should not be applied to DVD, CD, movie posters and etc. copyrighted stuff. Why labels are exception? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, and I think it is a good question. Perhaps wine labels in general don't have artistical qualification. The line has to be drawn somewhere.
Well, this creates a nice new standard for Commons. Fear not! Host it until we get a take down notice from someone's legal department! Wonderful. Just wonderful. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as someone involved in the wine business, I can assure you that the probability of a winery sending a takedown notice is practically zero. Wine labels are copyrighted for one reason only: to prevent copying by competitors, whether it be label design or a brand name of wine. Other than that, any winery welcomes publication of their label in as many places as possible. Any opportunity to get more publicity is always welcome. That's why the Wikimedia Foundation need not be concerned about this issue. Anachronist (talk) 05:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is said above that we should delete those that only show the wine label. Not all wine labels are eligible for copyright. If it is only text og if the grapic element is very simple there is nothing to protect. --MGA73 (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the attorney says its not a problem ("I don't believe there's a copyright problem with photographs of wine-bottle labels. In the absence of a complaint from wine makers, I would not worry about the issue"), there's really nothing to debate.--Milowent (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in general images of bottles, bearing in mind the de minimis principle - images of bottles and labels with modern illustrations and/or photos on them should be considered for deletion. feydey(talk)08:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unless very special cases which would mark them as being essentially artistic creations as a whole (i.e., the whole thing is meant to be an artistic creation, and is used and reproduced as such, the wine label just being used as a medium for the work). Michelet-密是力 (talk) 07:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete Most of these could be speedied. Why not just list debatable cases? Are there any? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment, fair use is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons. See our licensing policy. Blurpeace 01:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
